David Allan. Torrey et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 18, 201914031236 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/031,236 09/19/2013 David Allan Torrey 269920-1 7280 6147 7590 07/18/2019 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY GLOBAL RESEARCH 1 RESEARCH CIRCLE K1 - 3A59 Niskayuna, NY 12309 EXAMINER KRAMER, DEVON C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3746 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/18/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): GRCLegal.mail@ge.com preisman@ge.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DAVID ALLAN TORREY and DEEPAK ARAVIND1 ____________________ Appeal 2018-008073 Application 14/031,236 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4, 9, 11–16, and 20–22, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 General Electric Company (Appellant) is the applicant as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2018-008073 Application 14/031,236 2 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention “relates generally to motor-driven pumps, and more particularly, to a system and method for converterless operation of motor-driven pumps.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Appeal Br. 14–16 (Claims App.). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A converterless motor-driven pump system comprising: at least one off-grid prime mover comprising a driveshaft and operating in response to a throttle control command to control a rotational speed of the driveshaft; at least one electric permanent magnet power generator driven directly or indirectly by the driveshaft of the at least one off-grid prime mover to generate AC power, the permanent magnet generator not requiring an excitation controller; at least one variable speed motor directly or indirectly electrically coupled to the at least one electric power generator; at least one electric submersible pump directly coupled to the at least one variable speed motor, wherein the pump comprises a pressure sensor for measuring an inlet pressure of the pump; and a system controller receiving a signal representing the inlet pressure of the pump from the pressure sensor, the system controller generating and transmitting the throttle control command to the at least one off[-]grid prime mover to selectively adjust the rotational speed of the at least one off-grid prime mover to ensure that the at least one electric submersible pump is operating at a desired operating point. REJECTIONS I. Claims 1–4, 9, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pettigrew (US 7,170,262 B2, issued Jan. 30, 2007), Hollinger (US 7,411,310 B2, issued Aug. 12, 2008), Abdel-Rahman (US 5,108,264, issued Apr. 28, 1992), and Owen Appeal 2018-008073 Application 14/031,236 3 (R.L. Owen et al., Hybrid Excited Flux-Switching Permanent Magnet Machines, IEEE 2009). II. Claims 13–16 and 20–222 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pettigrew, Hollinger, Abdel-Rahman, Owen, and Bearden (US 6,167,965 B1, issued Jan. 2, 2001). DISCUSSION Rejection I Appellant does not present any separate arguments for dependent claims 2–4, 9, 11, and 12, apart from their dependence from independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9–11. We decide the appeal of this rejection on the basis of claim 1, and claims 2–4, 9, 11, and 12 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (permitting the Board to select a single claim to decide the appeal as to a single ground of rejection of a group of claims argued together). The issue presented in this appeal is whether it would have been obvious to modify Pettigrew to provide a pressure sensor for measuring an inlet pressure of Pettigrew’s electric submersible pump for feedback to Pettigrew’s system controller. See Appeal Br. 10–11; Final Act. 3–4; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 10, 11–12; Reply Br. 2–5. The Examiner determined that the combined teachings of Pettigrew, Hollinger, Abdel-Rahman, and Owen render obvious the subject matter of claim 1. See Final Act. 3–4. In pertinent part, the Examiner found that 2 Although claim 16 is not included in the statement of the rejection on page 6 of the Final Action, the detailed explanation of the rejection discusses claim 16 on page 8 of the Final Action. Appeal 2018-008073 Application 14/031,236 4 Pettigrew discloses a sensor for monitoring an electric submersible pump and a system controller that receives a signal from the sensor representing parameters of the pump and generates and transmits a throttle control command to the prime mover (the engine) to selectively control the rotational speed of the prime mover “to ensure that the at least one electric submersible pump is operating at a desired operating point.” Id. (citing Pettigrew 4:41–45; 5:38–43. The Examiner found that Pettigrew “discloses sensors for monitoring the pump,” but does not specify “the location of the sensors” and does not clearly teach a “pressure sensor specifically.” Id. at 4; Adv. Act. 2. The Examiner found, however, that “Abdel-Rahman teaches pump inlet pressure sensors providing feedback to a controller” and determined it would have been obvious to modify Pettigrew to provide sensors at the pump inlet “for the purpose of monitoring pumping fluid density.” Final Act. 4 (citing Abdel-Rahman 2:68–3:8; 4:66–5:1). The Examiner also found that it was well known in the art “that monitoring pump pressure and flow and adjusting the motor parameters to control these are standard practice.” Adv. Act. 2. Appellant does not specifically contest this finding. See Appeal Br. 9–11; Reply Br. 2–5. The Examiner added that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the placement and utilizing the pressure sensor of [Abdel-Rahman] would provide more precise control and safety in a pump system.” Adv. Act. 2. Appellant asserts that “interpret[ing] Pettigrew as having a sensor that measures the pressure at the pump inlet is an impermissible use of hindsight reconstruction.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant acknowledges that Pettigrew discloses that the system controller monitors sensors “at the pump itself” and interfaces with the engine throttle device and the excitation controller to Appeal 2018-008073 Application 14/031,236 5 adjust the speed of the electric motor based on monitored readings from the sensors. Id. However, Appellant contends that “there is no mention in Pettigrew that the ‘sensors’ comprise a pressure sensor that measures an inlet pressure of the electric submersible pump, only that the sensor is ‘at the pump itself.’” Id. Appellant’s contention is consistent with the Examiner’s findings, in that the Examiner found that Pettigrew discloses using monitored readings from sensors at the electric submersible pump, but did not find that Pettigrew discloses “any particular type of sensor measuring at any particular position” at the pump. See Ans. 11. Thus, Appellant’s assertion of hindsight is inapposite because it is premised on an interpretation of Pettigrew not taken by the Examiner. Appellant asserts “that, based on the teachings of Pettigrew being directed to a voltage output of the multi-tap electrical generator being controlled by the excitation controller to provide the appropriate voltage required by the electric motor, the correct interpretation is that the sensors would measure voltage, rather than inlet flow.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant does not provide any technical reasoning or evidence to support this assertion. For the reasons that follow, we find nothing in Pettigrew that supports this assertion. Pettigrew discloses a power system that includes an engine that drives a generator for powering an electric submersible pump. Pettigrew 4:20–24. Pettigrew’s “engine includes a throttle that is regulated by the system controller.” Id. 4:27–28. The system controller “includes programmed logic circuits, which monitor operation of the system and control the throttle on the engine.” Id. 4:41–43. Pettigrew expressly discloses that “[i]n the case of the electric submersible pump, the system controller would monitor pump Appeal 2018-008073 Application 14/031,236 6 operating conditions.” Id. 4:43–45. Pettigrew explains that “[t]he system controller interfaces with the throttle device and the excitation controller to monitor, control and regulate the desired operating parameters of the electric motor” to “adjust[] the speed based on monitored readings and the desired operating conditions of the motor for any one particular drive unit application.” Id. 5:35–41. Notably, as acknowledged by Appellant, Pettigrew specifically discloses that “[t]he monitored readings can be from sensors at the motor or in the case of an electric submersible pump, at the pump itself.” Id. 5:41–43 (emphasis added). Clearly, Pettigrew’s system controller uses monitored readings from sensors at the electric submersible pump to control the engine throttle and the excitation controller to regulate the voltage output of the generator supplied to the electric submersible pump. Further, the sensors at the pump each likely generate, either directly or indirectly, a voltage signal that is supplied to the programmed logic circuits of the system controller. However, this does not in any way imply that the sensors measure voltage, as opposed to generating a voltage representative of other operating conditions of the pump, such as inlet pressure. Appellant asserts that the claimed invention is directed to an “electric submersible pump with a pressure sensor for measuring an inlet pressure of the pump, not a mechanical, bi-directional, reciprocating pump as in Abdel- [Rahman],” and, ‘[t]hus, one skilled in the art would not look to the teachings of Abdel-[Rahman] and be motivated to modify Pettigrew, as asserted by the Examiner.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant points out that Pettigrew is directed to solving the problem of eliminating a variable speed drive between a generator and a motor that drives an electric submersible Appeal 2018-008073 Application 14/031,236 7 pump while, in contrast, Abdel-Rahman solves the “problem of significantly reducing ‘pumping and flow noise in reciprocating pumps by taking into account the pressure and temperature dependency of the compressibility of the pumping fluid.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant emphasizes that Abdel- Rahman’s sensors “provide feedback to an electronic pump speed controller that controls the pump drive motor rotation angle and the corresponding stroke of two pistons . . . to accommodate” for “the compressibility of the pumping fluid, the adiabatic heating of the pumping fluid during compression, variations in pumping fluid density, leads in the check valve . . . or cylinder piston seals and the primary and secondary switching losses in the fluid flow occurring when the piston reverses direction.” Id. In response, the Examiner points out that Appellant’s Specification does not specify “what kind of pump is being claimed other than that of an electric submersible pump,” nor does the recitation of an “electric submersible pump” in claim 1 exclude a reciprocating pump, which may be electric. Ans. 11–12. According to the Examiner, “one of skill will recognize that many electrically driven submersible pumps are reciprocating pumps such as the pump of Abdel-[Rahman].” Id. at 12; see Abdel-Rahman 2:7–9 (disclosing controlling the angle of rotation of a reversible drive motor to vary the stroke of each piston); id. 5:1 (disclosing an “electronic pump speed controller”). Appellant does not specifically refute the Examiner’s position in this regard. Moreover, even assuming that (1) the compressibility (or variability of compressibility) of the fluid to be pumped is not of concern in Pettigrew and (2) Abdel-Rahman’s pump speed controller uses the pump inlet pressure sensor only to accommodate for the compressibility of the pumping fluid, Appeal 2018-008073 Application 14/031,236 8 this does not undercut the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to include a pump inlet pressure sensor in Pettigrew as one of the disclosed sensors at the pump for providing readings to the system controller for monitoring pump operating conditions. In particular, the Examiner states that “[i]t is also extremely well known in the art that pressure sensors, especially suction/inlet sensors are used to monitor pump performance for control and preventative maintenance schedules.” Ans. 11. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s statement. Notably, claim 1 recites only that the “system controller receiv[es] a signal representing the inlet pressure of the pump from the pressure sensor” and generates and transmits the throttle control command to the prime mover to adjust the rotational speed of the prime mover “to ensure that the at least one electric submersible pump is operating at a desired operating point.” See Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). Claim 1 does not require the system controller to do anything with, or based on, the received signal representing the inlet pressure of the pump. Appellant also argues that because Pettigrew’s engine speed is controlled by a throttle device and Abdel-Rahman’s sensors all provide feedback to an electronic pump controller, “[t]here is no structure in Pettigrew that can support or incorporate Abdel-[Rahman]’s sensors.” Reply Br. 4. This argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, Pettigrew discloses a system controller for receiving signals from sensors at the pump. Thus, if Pettigrew were modified to have a pump inlet pressure sensor, as proposed in the rejection, such a sensor would provide feedback to the system controller. For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to modify Appeal 2018-008073 Application 14/031,236 9 Pettigrew to provide a pressure sensor for measuring an inlet pressure of Pettigrew’s electric submersible pump for feedback to Pettigrew’s system controller and, thus, fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2–4, 9, 11, and 12, which fall with claim 1, as unpatentable over Pettigrew, Hollinger, Abdel-Rahman, and Owen. Rejection II In contesting the rejection of independent claim 13, and claims 14–16 and 20–22 depending therefrom, Appellant relies solely on the arguments presented against the rejection of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12. For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1 and, likewise, fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of independent claim 13.3 Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 13, as well as claims 14–16 and 20–22, for which Appellant does not present any separate arguments apart from their dependence from claim 13 and which, thus, fall with claim 13, as unpatentable over Pettigrew, Hollinger, Abdel-Rahman, and Owen, and Bearden. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4, 9, 11–16, and 20–22 is affirmed. 3 Like claim 1, claim 13 requires a system controller to receive a signal representative of an inlet pressure of the pump, but does not require the system controller to do anything with, or based on, the received signal representing the inlet pressure of the pump. See Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). Appeal 2018-008073 Application 14/031,236 10 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation